ON THE CORRECT TREATMENT OF INVERTED EARTH

The Inverted Earth case has seen fierce debate between Ned Block, who says it defeats the causal‐covariational brand of wide representationalism about qualia, and Michael Tye and Bill Lycan, who say it does not. The debate has generated more heat than light because of a failure to get clear on who is supposed to be proving what, and what premises can be deployed in doing so. I argue that a correct understanding of the case makes it clear that the causal covariation theory is in deeper trouble over Inverted Earth than is generally supposed even by the theory's detractors.